Posted on 12/10/2023 12:53:16 PM PST by daniel1212
Just consider Jupiter...and tell me that there *absolutely* is no God.
No. It’s being able to replicate the results with falsifiable testing.
The answer to both is rather simple: The ability to make choices=alternatives, while Truth is exclusive by nature.
1. The ability to make choices (vs. being a robot) is meaningless unless there are alternatives to choose btwn.
2. God thus allowed Lucifer to choose to try an "Occupy Movement," that of breaking into the administration building, I mean presuming,
"I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High," (Isaiah 14:13-14)
3. Being cast down ("for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted" - Luke 18:14) then as the Original Liberal/Communist, in his unending quest for power, he worked to seduce Eve via the victim entitlement mentality, essentially inferring that she was a victim of injustice due to God forbidding her to obtain godhood, and thus she was deceived into thinking she was justified in obtaining this status by an act of disobedience via shoplifting something that was attractive to the eyes, the flesh, and the ego. Adam however, knew what he was doing but choose to essentially made his wife as god for the moment.
4. Since there must be and are alternatives to choose btwn - and a devil to seduce souls with false gods - then there are many different created things to choose rather than the one True Creator of all that is good. But only an omniscient, omnipotent Being is worthy to be your God, which means whatever is your ultimate object of security, and allegiance, and spiritual affection, for all created things are finite, prone to faults, and will ultimately fail.
5. Since Truth is ultimately exclusive by nature, even though sharing some commonalities, then only one a competing deities, earthly and heavenly can be the right one, thus only one basic faith can be the right one.
6. The purpose of this ability to choose and of competition is to manifest what each person will choose, as God seeks Truth in the inward part, and those who truly want what God is, comes to Christ, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. John 2:19-21; 14:6
7. When compared with others, Christianity stands far above all others in comprehensive ancient revelation in scope and depy, wisdom, moral depth and qualities, and experiential reality 8. What you do with the degree of Truth you have - while you have it - beginning with conscience, affects how much more you will receive, (John 12:35,36: Romans 2:7,8) while spurning and rejecting this grace will ultimately mean ending up deceived (Matthew 6:21-23) and in eternal darkness, (Matthew 8:12) and with eternal punishment relative to your accountability and iniquity. (Acts 20:11-15) in contrast to the Children of Light. (Ephesians 5:8)
(Note that Pluralism itself does not solve the problem of Truth is exclusive by nature, since that itself would be presuming to be the one true belief.)
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:18-21)Hope this helps. http://peacebyjesus.net
I do believe that Jesus is/was/always will be the Son of God, there is a Holy Trinity:Father, The Word, The Holy Ghost and these three are one, and salvation is freely offered through the perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of God. How do I know? I was shown my sinful self, in comparison to His perfection. I know what He has done in my life, I know the relationship I have with Him. Proof? Don’t need it. I know.
Thanks, a very good addition. Should I add Quantum entanglement to the list of keywords?
On that basis, scrupulous atheists now have to take consciousness seriously. Like matter, it seems plausible that the realm of consciousness is organized in some manner. For humans at least, this implies the existence of a soul as well as the existence of other conscious entities -- perhaps even God as a Supreme Being.
Not likely the latter, for while the existence of aliens and "space seed" is allowed as a hypothesis, usually a creator-judge is verbotten.
Your post reminded me of a conversation I had with a schizophrenic homeless guy once. Well, it wasn’t much of a conversation honestly, I just listened.
at one time, ‘it’ was either magick/sorcery or the gods.a time later, it was still ‘m’/’s’ or the go d.
a time more, the debate between the god or neginning science.
today, you have that half-boat buildet in kenticky stating its all the god, the atheist stating no god, the scientist pushing back on no god and its m/s.
whatever is experiential to the individual, is best defimed in the box of the individual, because that which happened cannot be duplivated for verification.
whether that be divine, m/s, or happenstance.
You’ve jammed FM Receivers?
.
You are My best Buddy !
And thus, "Our level of consciousness who art in Heaven."
I have passed through this and entered Heaven many times, most recently in October during surgery when I left my body. I’ve also gone there many times guiding people when they die. I call this lower level of Heaven the recycling level for souls that are growing but have not grown to transcend self or the physical body. Death is not graduation, it is merely a semester break. Transcendence is graduation as it allows a person to move above the lower level of Heaven
I can add that to collection of erroneous esoterica. Wherever Scripture clearly speaks of the next conscious reality for those who die in that effectual faith then it is with the Lord, at death or His return (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul, who expressed he would go to be with the Lord at death, yet was not already perfect. (Phil. 3:10f)
. Paul spoke of this Higher Heaven in Acts.
He spoke of the third heaven in 2 Co. 12:4. The first would logically be this atmosphere, the second, space.
Your soul actually expands to where the entire earth exists within you. This is what Jesus experienced when He came out of the wilderness and dtsted “My Father and I are One.”
Nonsense, are you on drugs?
I knew I was in Heaven due to both the feeling of Love and the bright Light. Everything looked brighter. All the colors were more brilliant and actually glowed. This is how they appear when you perceive with your expanded consciousness beyond your physical body.
If not something like the church of LSD.
Priviledge Planet movie.
I would not look to science to assist with this question, but in the narrow consideration of logic, the statement is true, if science cannot prove or disprove existence (of anything, God or otherwise), then it could exist. Believers have faith that God does exist. They may rely on personal experiences or they may look at what they see as overwhelming evidence that the universe and in particular our planet were intelligently designed.
Even so, if God created the universe, then we are left with a really unsolvable mystery, what was God’s origin before the universe? I think there are two possibilities, (1) God existed before the universe was created, or (2) God came into existence somewhere in the universe after that happened. Once in existence, God would have the powers to travel in space and time and could have been “present” at the creation even if it also happened before his existence.
For those who would want to say, oh no, God was definitely the creator of our universe, that’s fine, I don’t know, but it simply kicks the can down the road to whatever previous universe existed before God existed, or we are left with the concept that God existed before everything existed, including previous universes. I cannot totally wrap my mind around such a paradox but I freely admit that my inability to comprehend is not any sort of proof of a negative, just a shortcoming in my mortal understanding.
Personally, I see no chance that there is no God. If there was not the God of our understanding (Biblical, Yahweh, father of Jesus Christ) then inevitably some future being in the universe would evolve to obtain god-like powers anyway. An interesting question is this, can God do everything, or just more things than any other creation? For example, can God be in two places at the same time? Can God add 2 and 2 to get 17? Can God hit a hole in one on every hole including par fives? You see what I am getting at, not to be facetious, but it is sufficient for God to be much more powerful than us to merit our worship and service. God would not have to be able to do anything no matter how illogical. So the definition of God is important, is it a being without any limits at all, or a being with superior powers to other beings? At what point does an evolving being “become” God? What happens if one does and there already is a God?
I don’t know the answers to any of these questions.
See post 20.
The scientific exploration of consciousness is only beginning. Already though, using the human mind under controlled circumstances, hypnotic regression and mediumship tend to produce consistent results that include descriptions of human souls as eternal and as deriving from "source" as a supreme universal consciousness.
The funny thing about aliens and space seed theories is that they defer but do not answer the question of who created the aliens. And if one goes in for ETs and the like, what argument can be made against taking the results of hypnotic regression and mediumship seriously?
Here are some passages from A Brief History of Time. This book is full of spirituality.From chapter 4, The Uncertainty Principle:
The doctrine of scientific determinism was strongly resisted by many people, who felt that it infringed God's freedom to intervene in the world, but it remained the standard assumption of science until the early years of this century...From chapter 8, The Origin and Fate of the UniverseThe quantum hypothesis explained the observed rate of emission of radiation from hot bodies very well, but its implications for determinism were not realized until 1926, when another German scientist, Werner Heisenberg, formulated his famous uncertainty principle. In order to predict the future position and velocity of a particle, one has to be able to measure its present position and velocity accurately...
...In other words, the more accurately you try to measure the position of the particle, the less accurate you can measure its speed, and vice versa...
The uncertainty principle had profound implications for the way in which we view the world. Even after more than fifty years they have not been fully appreciated by many philosophers, and are still the subject of much controversy. The uncertainty principle signaled an end to Laplace's dream of a theory of science, a model of the universe that would be completely deterministic: one certainly cannot predict the future state of the universe precisely! We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determine events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it.
Science seems to have uncovered a set of laws that, within the limits of the uncertainty principle, tell us how the universe will develop with time, if we know its state at any one time. These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe ti evolve according to them and dies not now intervene in it. But how did he choose the initial state or configuration of the universe? What were the "boundary conditions" at the beginning of time?From chapter 10, The Unification of PhysicsOne possible answer is to say that God chose the initial configuration of the universe for reasons that we cannot hope to understand. This would certainly been within the power of an omnipotent being, but if he had started it off in such an incomprehensible way, why did he choose to let it evolve according to laws that we could understand? The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.
...This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.
...If Euclidean space-time stretches back to infinite imaginary time, or else starts at a singularity in imaginary time, we have the same problem as in the classical theory of specifying the initial state of the universe: God may know how the universe began, but we cannot give any particular reason for thinking it began one way rather than another. On the one hand, the quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of the space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that is has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.
...The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God ti wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
But can there really be a unified theory? Or are we perhaps chasing a mirage? There seems to be three possibilities: 1) There really is is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough. 2) There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately. 3) There is no theory of the universe; events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.From chapter 11, Conclusion:Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were a complete set of laws, that would infringe on God's freedom to change his mind and intervene in the world. It's a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? But the idea that God might want to change his mind is an example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time: time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, he knew what he intended when he set it up!
With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to recognized that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one likes, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God, but it would be a very strange kind of intervention: there is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it would by definition not be random. In modern times, we have removed the third possibility above by redefining the goal of science: our aim is to formulate a set of laws that enables us to predict events only up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.
We find ourselves in a bewildering world. We want to make sense of what we see around us and ask: What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it and where did it and we come from? Why is it the way it is?-PJ...The success of these laws led Laplace at the beginning of the nineteenth century to postulate scientific determinism, that is, he suggested that there would be a set of laws that would determine the evolution of the universe precisely, given the configuration at one time.
Laplace's determinism was incomplete in two ways. It did not say how the laws should be chosen, and it did not specify the initial configuration of the universe. These were left to God. God would choose how the universe began and what laws it obeyed, but he would not intervene in the universe once it had been started. In effect, God was confined to the areas that nineteenth-century science did not understand.
...In effect, we have redefined the task of science to be the discovery of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limits set by the uncertainty principle. The question remains, however: How or why were the laws and the initial state of the universe chosen?
...These singularities would be an end of time for anyone who fell into the black hole. At the Big Bang and other singularities, all laws would have broken down, so God would still have had complete freedom to choose what happened and how the universe began.
...But if the universe is completely self-contained, with no singularities or boundaries, and completely described by a unified theory, that has profound implications for the role of God as Creator.
Einstein once asked the question: "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?" If the no boundary proposal is correct, he had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions. He would, of course, still have had the freedom to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. This, however, may not really have been that much of a choice; there may well be only one, or a small number, of complete unified theories... that are self-consistent and allow the existence of structures as complicated as human beings who can investigate the laws of the universe and ask about the nature of God.
...Up to now, most scientists have been too preoccupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why? On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advancement of scientific theories.
...However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we would know the mind of God.
The author is verbose and too wordy. Try this: if everything had a beginning, then nothing would start. True. Thus, there is one thing that did not have a beginning and has always been here. The Father. Case closed.
bkmk
You need to repent and put your faith in the God of Scripture, not some fabricated idea of what you have concerning God. The god of your own making cannot save you. It's an idol.
Your posts have always indicated a real lack of knowledge of God and Scripture, and this comment of yours proves it.
God is God, not some level of consciousness above your own. You are messing with the demonic and will pay a serious price for it.
I know God and some version of heaven and hell exists because of faith.
Will know for sure when we drop dead...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you know this how?
At the end of the day it’s all about faith in the unproven.
We all choose our own path.
Anyone that tells you they “Know” is full of Sh*t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yep, that says it all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.